[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Not quite.
http://octaga.com
Sometimes the patented and open technolgies play well
together and the licensing is paid for by the vendor.
The end user gets the player for free, but the editor+codec
may cost and again, the cost of licensing is bundled
into that. That is how gif was handled. This stuff
is a problem for open source groups, admittedly, so
it is better to seek alternatives to licensing. The
only thing one cannot do is ignore the patents because
we are back to the indemnity problem. It is better
to convince the patent holder that the market opportunities
are better if open source is enabled. That is a
sales job and not always an easy one.
I am not concerned that firms patent IP as long as they
play by the rules of the standards and specifications
organizations when they make a submission, and hide
no details that taint the products. XML binarization
is an area in which patents exist. Ok. As long as
submissions to the W3C or others fit within the policies,
no problem. It will be a problem if the only acceptable
solution is one that they will not submit under those
policies. Then the organizations have to standardize
an inferior technology or pay the tolls. Fortunately,
there aren't many technologies for which acceptable
alternatives aren't available, or that is the position
some take.
What one must have is a level playing field before
the law.
len
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Somebody stick a fork in MPEG. It's done. In fact its way overcooked.
Like a dinosaur brain that hasn't yet got the message that its dead
yet. --courtesy dept of redundancy dept. Better yet, require it carry
a poison warning symbol.
Taps, please,
|
